The members of the Democratic Party are asking for legislation of ethics that would be applicable to all the judges of the Supreme Court who will determine for themselves in case disqualification is necessary. The entire judiciary is silent about the matter of 6th January and its recent revelation that came after the disclosure of text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows. In those messages, Ginni was pressing Meadows to give more effort to try to reverse the decision of the 2020 election.
Justice Clarence Thomas Is Taking A Recusal Which Is Debated Everywhere
The Supreme Court once got involved in the January 6th investigation where Justice Clarence Thomas gave his sole opinion that Donald Trump should give documents relevant to such investigation. There can be a few other cases that will come to the High Court regarding this incident, however, Justice Clarence Thomas did not comment on whether he would stay or refuse such a case.
The law is the same everywhere and hence the Supreme Court lays the statute that a Judge cannot hear a case where his impartiality will be questioned. The same statute also mentions all the kinds of financial fights where a judge might stand down. However, the procedure that lower courts follow is different from that of the Supreme Court and its decision cannot be reviewed anymore.
In the words of Amanda Frost, the Supreme Court have failed to comply with many tasks recently and also could not keep absolute transparency on certain crucial public matters.
The recusal history of Justice Clarence Thomas is very low and it has happened once when he moved out of a case related to Virginia Military Institute where his son used to study during that time. It is a matter of discussion whether being a part of the January 6th case, Justice Clarence Thomas has violated the norms of ethics. One of his defenders is Michael Davis, who called the charges laughable and frivolous.